Accountability in the Russia–Ukraine Conflict: Pairing the ICC with a Truth Commission

About this paper. This brief was originally written in March 2025. The argument and recommendations are presented as written. Since then: in March 2026, the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded that Russia’s deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children amount to crimes against humanity. It verified more than 1,200 cases and found that 80 percent of those children had still not been returned.[7] That finding shows the kind of fact-finding this brief argues for, and how much enforcement still lags behind it.

To hold Russia accountable for the unlawful transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine, the international community should use the International Criminal Court (ICC) together with nonjudicial approaches, such as a truth commission, that make up for the Court’s limitations. The ICC has the legal authority to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. In this war, however, its reach is restricted: Russia never ratified the Rome Statute and withdrew its signature in 2016. The Court’s arrest warrants show its importance but also its practical limits, because they depend on other states and the UN Security Council for enforcement. A truth commission, backed by political organizations such as the EU, should work alongside the Court to document atrocities and keep diplomatic pressure on Russia, helping secure accountability even without an enforceable judicial mandate.

What the ICC can and cannot do

The ICC was created in 1998 under the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Russia has avoided its jurisdiction by never ratifying the treaty.[2] Even so, on March 17, 2023, the Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, on charges related to the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia.[1]

Warrants like these strengthen other diplomatic measures, including sanctions and exclusion from international bodies. But because Russia rejects the Court’s jurisdiction and holds a veto on the Security Council, enforcement is limited. The ICC’s efforts are important, but on their own they are not enough to hold those responsible to account. Nonjudicial mechanisms such as truth and reconciliation commissions can help close that enforcement gap, for example by working with the EU to investigate further abuses and support the Court’s cases.

The ICC’s record

The ICC faces credibility questions, but it has secured significant convictions. On March 14, 2012, it convicted Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities.[3] The precedent is directly relevant to crimes against children in armed conflict.

The warrants against Russia’s leaders have also increased international pressure on Moscow. Sanctions and restricted access to global forums weigh on Russia’s economy and damage its diplomatic reputation. Russia’s suspension from the UN Human Rights Council is a serious, though not fatal, blow: it can no longer take part in human rights discussions there or defend itself against accusations of violations during the war, which limits its ability to shape the narrative. Russia still has strong partners, such as China, that can advocate on its behalf.

Russia may use its Security Council veto to block enforcement measures. But images of mass graves and of civilians killed with their hands tied behind their backs have seriously damaged the credibility of Russia’s leadership at the UN. Having lost trust on human rights questions, Russia would find it difficult to defend itself against the ICC’s accusations.

A truth commission

A truth commission would be an independent, temporary body, established by the UN or the EU, to examine patterns of abuse during the conflict. Truth commissions generally allow victims to share what they suffered and, in some cases, to confront those responsible. They are not courts and cannot convict individuals, but the evidence they gather can support judicial proceedings.[6]

In this context, a commission could investigate the allegations underlying the ICC’s warrants and interview child victims and their families to strengthen the case against Russian leaders. It should also examine the intent behind the transfers, including efforts to erase Ukrainian identity by assimilating children into Russian culture. Its report would be shared with the ICC and used to press the UN and EU to take further action.

Challenges

The main risk is the charge of politicization. Russia strongly opposes Western involvement in its conflicts and would likely portray a truth commission as a biased political body controlled by the West.[4] To counter this, the commission should publish its methods and findings to demonstrate its neutrality. Partnering with the EU would also strengthen its legitimacy, and the EU, as an established political actor, can mobilize member states to keep economic pressure on Russia, including by reducing dependence on Russian energy.[5]

Conclusion

A truth commission would help close the ICC’s enforcement gap and sustain diplomatic pressure on Russia. By documenting abuses in detail, its findings would further isolate Russia on international platforms. Working together, the Court and a commission would clarify Russia’s intent and provide a stronger framework for holding its leaders accountable, even beyond the ICC’s direct reach.